- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:793 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100298 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ATAULLA S/O. SHAFIAHMED HUBLI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BASAVESHWARA ASHRAYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, TA: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591101. 2. MEHABOOB S/O. SHOHEB HUBBALLI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. ASHRAYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, TA: BAILHONGALA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. 3. RAFIQ S/O. ISMAIL KORAVINKOPPA AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BASAVESHWARA ASHRAYA NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, TA. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. 4. MOHAMMADSIDIK S/O. AKBAR DEVALAPUR AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. KAMBLE GALLI, BAILHONGAL, TA. BAILHONGALA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. 5. ALLAMUPPID S/O. NIYAJAAHAMAD BEPARI AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BEPARI GALLI, BAILHONGAL, TA. BAILHONGALA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANWARALI DILAWAR NADAF AND SRI. A.M.KAREKAZI, ADVOCATESS) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAILHONGAL PS, RPRESENTED BY B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:793 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2023 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT, DHARWAD-580011. 2. RAVI S/O. IRAPPA TIMMANNAVAR AGE. 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION. COOLIE, R/O. ASHRAYA COLONY, JANATA PLOT, BAILHONGAL, TA. BAILHONGAL-591101, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 5 REGISTERED BY BAILHONGAL PS IN CRIME NO. 0279/2022, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143, 147, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC ST ACT, THE PRESENT PETITION IS FILED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 279/2022, REGISTERED BY BAIL HONGAL PS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI AMONGST THE OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE GROUNDS RELIEF IN THE AVERMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SC and ST Act”). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:793 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2023 2. Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on 12.11.2022, alleging that on 08.11.2022 at about 9:30 a.m., Sanin Jangi, the daughter of the complainant, was traveling to school on a bus when one Sadik teased her. Following this, Respondent No.2 and others gathered at the house of the petitioners. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioners abused the complainant and others with reference to their caste, assaulted them, and threatened them with dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR was lodged by Respondent No.2 as a counterblast while evading arrest in Crime No.276/2022, lodged by petitioner No.1 against the complainant for stabbing one of the petitioners with a knife. The counsel further contended that the alleged incident occurred on 08.11.2022, but the FIR was filed on 12.11.2022 without any plausible explanation for the delay, indicating that it was an afterthought to counter the FIR lodged by petitioner No.1. 4. In response, the learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1-State argued that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners, and the veracity of these allegations requires investigation. Therefore, the matter does not warrant interference at this stage, and the petition should be dismissed. 5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:793 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2023 6. Petitioner No.1 had earlier lodged an FIR in Crime No.276/2022, alleging that Respondent No.2 stabbed one of the petitioners with a knife in connection with the incident involving the teasing of the complainant’s daughter by Sadik, against whom a criminal case was registered in Crime No.279/2022 under the POCSO Act. Following the stabbing incident, the complainant absconded to evade arrest and, four days later, on 12.11.2022, filed the present FIR. Instead of taking action against Respondent No.2, the police registered the FIR lodged by him. 7. The allegations against the petitioners in the FIR are omnibus and general in nature. There is no specific overt act attributed to each of the accused as to how and in what manner they assaulted or abused the complainant with reference to his caste. The FIR appears to have been lodged only as an afterthought to counter the FIR registered against Respondent No.2 at the instance of petitioner No.1. 8. This Court, vide order dated 09.02.2023, granted a stay on the impugned FIR. However, the police, after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 09.01.2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1884/2013, Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., has held that the High Court, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., retains the power to quash an FIR even after the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(3) of the Cr.P.C., if it is satisfied that the FIR and charge sheet, when read together and accepted as true, do not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:793 CRL.P No. 100298 of 2023 disclose the commission of any offence, or if the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet material clearly indicate that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by petitioner No.1 against the complainant for offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. 10. In view of the foregoing analysis, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, , the FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The impugned first information report in Crime No.276/2022 registered by Bailhongal Police Station and the subsequent charge sheet filed by the Police are hereby quashed. AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE